Volume 32 complete

(1)

Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education

2015

(2)

Volume 32 Editors

Elizabeth Garber, Past Editor,

University of Arizona

León de la Rosa-Carrillo, Guest Editor,

Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez

Incoming Senior Editors

Karen Hutzel, The Ohio State University

Ryan Shin, University of Arizona

Associate Editor

Joni Boyd Acuff, The Ohio State University

jCRAE Review Board for this Issue Joni Boyd Acuff

The Ohio State University

Amanda Alexander

University of Texas, Arlington

Dan Barney

Brigham Young University

Terry Barrett

The Ohio State University, Emeritus

Sharif Bey

Syracuse University

Patty Bode

Springfield Conservatory of the Arts, Springfield, Mass.

Melanie Buffington

Virginia Commonwealth University

Juan Carlos Castro

Concordia University

Kimberly Cosier

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Olivia Gude

University of Illinois, Chicago

Lisa Hochtritt

Alexandra Kollisch

Syracuse University

Sheri Klein

Independent Scholar

Amelia Kraehe

University of North Texas Jorge Lucero

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Dónal O Donoghue

University of British Columbia

Ryan Patton

Natasha S. Reid

James Sanders III

The Ohio State University

Manisha Sharma

Kryssi Staikidis

Northern Illinois University

Robert Sweeny

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Laura Trafí-Prats

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Jason Wallin

Universitiy of Alberta

Sara Wilson McKay

Virginia Commonwealth University Courtnie Wolfgang

Publication:

Once a year by the United States Society for Education

through Art (USSEA). Subscriptions:

jCRAE is an open-source online publication of USSEA. While access is free, readers and people

interested in supporting the mission and activities of the journal and of USSEA are encouraged to join USSEA (for more information about the organization, please visit www.ussea.net). Annual membership

dues are $25 and include issues of the Newsletter. Check or money orders should be made payable to USSEA and sent to:

Nanyoung Kim

Jenkins Fine Art Center East Carolina University Greenville, NC 27858

[email protected] Editorial Offices:

Karen Hutzel, Co-Senior Editor

Associate Professor and Graduate Studies Chair Department of Arts Administration, Education, and Policy

The Ohio State University

1813 N. High St., 2nd_floor Columbus OH 43210 [email protected]

Managing Editor

Chun-Chieh Chen, University of Arizona

Past Editor

Elizabeth Garber, University of Arizona

USSEA President/

Ex Officio Member of the Review Board Alice Wexler

State University of New York, New Paltz

Ryan Shin, Co-Senior Editor Associate Professor School of Art University of Arizona Art, PO 210002 Tucson AZ 85721-0002 [email protected]

Copyright:

Permission:

Individual must request permission from the edi-tor to reproduce more than 500 words of journal material.

Cover:

Barbara Bergstrom, Just a Thought, 2012, acrylic on

canvas. Please see article, “Tangling in Remix” Layout:

León de la Rosa-Carrillo

Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez

jCRAE

Volume 32 Summer 2015

Journal of

Cultural Research

in Art Education

The Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education is published through generous support from United States Society for Education through Art

(USSEA) and the University of Arizona.

USSEA was founded in 1977 to promote multicultural and cross-cultural

research in art education. It is an independent organization affiliated with the International Society for Education through Art (InSEA) and the

National Art Education Association (NAEA).

The editors of the Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education thank Martina Shenal, Interim Director, School of

Art, University of Arizona, for support in making

(3)

jCRAE

Past Editors

Volumes 1-4 Larry Kantner 1982-1986

University of Missouri

Volume 5-8 Rogena Degge 1986-1990

University of Oregon

Volume 6 Guest Editors: Paul Bolin, Doug Blandy, & Kristin Congdon

Volumes 9-12 Ronald W. Neperud 1990-1994

Douglas Marschalek

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Volume 13 Ronald W. Neperud 1994-1995

Don H. Krug

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Volumes 14-18 Don H. Krug 1995-1999

The Ohio State University Volume 18 Guest Editor: Patricia L. Stuhr

Volumes 19-22 Tom Anderson 2000-2004

Florida State University

Volumes 23-25 Enid Zimmerman 2004-2007

Indiana University

Volumes 26, 27 Kristin G. Congdon 2008-2009

University of Central Florida

Volumes 28,29 Dipti Desai 2010-2012

New York University

Volumes 30-32 Elizabeth Garber 2012-2015

(4)

jCRAE

guest co-editor León de la Rosa-Carrillo, suggests remix as a way of thinking about the workings of cultures (past, present, diverse across ethnicities, races, nations, genders, abilities and interests, beliefs, and other factors that contribute to the weaving of cultures and their many derivations) that involves active and knowing re-creation. León dynamically brought to life for colleagues and faculty many of the concepts of remix during his time at the University of Arizona, and fills out the editorial background on remix for this issue.1_Following

this, readers will find an overview of the seven articles outside the

theme, but still very much in the center of this journal’s focus on

cul-tural studies research. But first, remix.

The mini-themed issue from Volume 32 of the Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education focuses on Remix, which reminds me of two

passages from Mark Amerika’s Remixthebook (2011, locs. 2062 & 2199) where the author forgoes any sense of detachment and announces what he is reminded of by his own writing. But regardless of what Amerika recalls it is his very act of recalling, and calling attention to

it, what has since become an essential part of how I understand remix and, it occurs to me, an adequate point of departure to talk about

1 Readers interested in remix will enjoy (yes, enjoy) the experience of reading Dr. de la Rosa-Carrillo’s very visual dissertation, On the Language of Internet Memes, an intelligent and playful look at internet memes such as image macros and animated GIFs made by students. He analyzes these productions through remix theory, actor-network theory, object oriented ontology, and glitch studies, arguing that internet memes can be understood as an actor-network in which the elements of memes come to interact among themselves, aside from human

interplay. The form the dissertation takes moves from scholarly written word to

remixed images in providing readers with more than an understanding of these concepts, but with experiences of remixing digital memes.

Fig. 1 Amerika, 2011,

(6)

Editorial | 11 | reference, every

point of depar-ture and all con-tent into an end-less stream of

posts, hashtags and trending

topics. Remix then, it seems, is but a click or a keyword search away. But remix is by no means wholly

dependent on digital technology, social media nor the algorithms that fuel them, rather when Rome remixed Greece (Manovich, 2005) the resulting empire was a blend of manipulated customs, mythologies and ideals that embodied an active and dynam -ic remembrance of Greek culture.

Similarly Ferguson, in his Everything is a

Remix (2012) video series, equates Remix to a type of folk art that

anybody can engage through a Copy-Transform-Combine process.

His quick look into Led Zeppelin’s well-documented penchant for

lifting riffs and lyrics from old blues songs speaks to the nature of remix as a process that shows through even when uncredited and, arguably, unintended. In this case, even if Zeppelin meant for these compositions to pass off as wholly original, the songs themselves reveal their source material and can’t help but shine a light on

every blues tune that the band ripped off, or channeled, or actively

recalled during their writing/remixing sessions.

Fig. 2 Knobel &

Lankshear, 2008, p.1

Fig. 3 Caplan, 2014, Remix section

Fig. 4 Manovich, 2005, p.1

Fig. 5 Everything is a

(7)

Editorial | 13 |

Bradshaw and Bergstrom, whose article opens this mini-themed issue, make note of a similar instance when one of the authors recognizes a song from the ‘80s even through it’s a new, remixed guise that her 15-year-old daughter believes to be new. This particular song’s remix

however claims much older source material as Bradshaw is then

made to recall a similar experience with her own mother regarding the same song originally, it turns out, from the ‘60s. As Bradshaw and Bergstrom struggle and get tangled up searching for the significance

of remix as a practice, a philosophy, and a concept their article

splin-ters into two columns, each voicing one author and allowing readers

to perform a remix of their own as they dart from one side to the other

examining the arguments that each writer advances and the anec -dotes they tell.

Wolfgang and Ivashkevich’s article is a visually engaging piece that focuses on the sense of agency afforded to remixers by appropriat

-ing and rewrit-ing consumer culture. Not only do the authors share a handful of collages and video mashups generated by teenage girls during a juvenile arbitration program, but they also offer their own feminist readings and reactions to these pieces of remixed content adding yet another layer of messy complexity to the remix process. The work by Wolfgang, Ivashkevich, and their teenage learners brings into focus a significant aspect of remix culture: the inherent fluidity of

the line that separates a media producer from a consumer of mediated

messages. Lessig (2008) has coined the notion of an RW culture where

readers are just as likely to become writers by developing the necessary skills, engaging the available tools and immersing themselves in an environment that encourages remix.

Denmead’s article, which closes out the remix-themed portion of this issue, explores yet another aspect of remix culture, as he revisits no-tions of community that once shaped his own practice as an art

educa-tor. In remixing Greene’s seminal Releasing the Imagination (2005) with

Pope L.’s Skin Set (2013) he creates a new text that is equal parts found

poem and DJ-inpired literary mix that propels the source material into previously unrealized depths of interrelational complexities. Perhaps

this is what Miller (2004), a DJ and an academic himself, means when

he asks for two turntables and offers a universe in return.

Which reminds me of the universe of cultural research in art education that

exists beyond remix. A universe that this JCRAE issue samples in the form of seven other articles that explore non-remix themes but can

equally be remixed if readers choose to. Happy remixing.

Outside the active and knowing employment of the remix theme, Manisha Sharma, in her article “Mythical Beings and Becoming,”

Fig. 6 Lessig, 2011, p.28

(8)

Editorial | 15 |

and Nurit Cohen Evron, in “Stories of Becoming an Art Educator,” both provide research on becoming art educators from, respectively, Indian- and Israeli-influenced perspectives. Sharma interviewed 17 art educators in India to understand the influence of social construc

-tions of gender on the educators’ decisions to join the profession. These stories are analyzed through Barthes’ theoretical concepts of myths as originary stories—she describes the myth of Laxmana-rekha

as an originary story of gender in India—and Deleuze and Guattari’s idea of becoming as an endless state. Cohen Evron revisits her own becoming as an art educator based on personal, professional, and institutional experiences amidst the continuing conflicts within and

around the borders of Israel. She describes how these experiences

come to bear on teaching art as critical pedagogy.

Cala Coats presents a case study of a community of makers who turned a decommissioned missile base into an art and community space and a residence. Far beyond the description of the work, she helps us understand the space and the social relations of the

partici-pants through Guattari’s three ecosophies, the psychic, the social, and the environmental. “Transversalizing Ecologies of Control” is accom

-panied by Coats’ images of the re-purposed base.

In “The Spaces in Which We Appear to Each Other,” Cathlin Goulding presents resistance stories of Asian American Riot Grrrls through their zines. The zine authors (including Goulding) examine identity and self, gender norms, stereotypes of Asians, mixed-identity and racial binaries, white privilege, invisibilities and hyper-visibilities, language and family, and social in/justice. Goulding argues that zines are a type of pedagogy that foster active voice and self-learning in makers and teach fellow zinesters and readers in an informal yet penetrating manner, through text and visuals.

Ruth Smith worked with Somali women living in the Midwest to deepen understanding of the wearing of hijab. The five women made photographs and wrote narratives that show their process of deci

-sion in choosing if and when to wear hijab. Smith’s article on this

participatory action research project, “Dumarka Soomaaliyeed Voices

Unveiled,” is accompanied by the women’s photographs and narra

-tives. She argues that, when exhibited, they activated public space to

interrupt misperceptions of Somali women and presented multiple

stories through which to understand women and modesty in Somali

culture.

Kay Kok Chung Oi created five paintings about prostitutes and prostitution in early Singapore that were shown in an exhibition in Singapore. The paintings were interpretations of a scholarly work

on the subject by historian James Frances Warren. In her article “Art

as Exhibition,” she provides a context for understanding what the paintings have to teach us about the cultural contributions made by these immigrant women from China and Japan to building Singapore and the personal sacrifices involved. Reproductions of the paintings

accompany the text.

Rounding out this issue is Mary Stokrocki’s ’s article on a case study of San Carlos Apache students’ visual responses to a prompt she gave them to share their “special mountain home.” Place, animals, and sa -cred ceremonies were found to be culturally derived themes, whereas

inclusion of a pick-up truck, fishing and hunting scenes, and domestic and social life suggested slow social change.

Volume 32 is a strong sampling of cultural aspects of research in art

and visual culture education today, with several articles enhanced by

theoretical analysis that helps us not only deepen our understanding of issues important to our field but to re-think them. The issue is also strongly visual, indicating a very positive trend in our field to incor -porate the visual elements of what we do.

I have enjoyed working closely with each author and her/his ideas

and research process over my three years as Senior Editor and look forward with excitement to where our new Senior Co-Editors, Karen

Hutzel and Ryan Shin, will take the journal. It has been a privilege to work with León de la Rosa-Carrillo as Guest Editor in developing this

(9)

Tangling in Remix | 17 | issue critical. Layout for this issue is the work of León de la

Rosa-Carrillo (also Guest Editor): profound thanks to him for this undertak

-ing. Thanks to University of Arizona Interim Director Martina Shenal for support of Managing Editor Chun-Chieh Chen’s position and to

jCRAE’s parent organization, USSEA, and especially President Alice

Wexler, Past President Steve Willis, and the USSEA Board for their

support of the journal. A continuing thanks to readers for their inter -est in and support of cultural research in art education. We invite your contributions, and hope you will join or renew your membership with USSEA at ussea.net.

References

Amerika, M. (2011). Remixthebook (Kindle ed.). Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Caplan, P. (2013, October 19). Everyday Remix - Remix [App-Book]. Retrieved

from http://www.theinternationale.com/everydayremix/#remix

Everything is a Remix with subtitles. (2011, November 22). Retrieved from

http://www.amara.org/en/videos/1YEcplHRVXz2/en/9204/

Ferguson, K. (Director). (2010) Everything is a Remix [Video Series] USA. Avail-able: https://vimeo.com/14912890

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008). The Art and Craft of Endless Hybridiza -tion. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 22-33. Retrieved from http:// www.jstor.org/stable/30139647

Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy (PDF ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Miller, P. (2004). Rhythm Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Tangling in Remix

R. Darden Bradshaw PhD., University of Dayton Barbara Bergstrom PhD.,

Bowling Green State University1

AbSTRAcT

This project illustrates an alternative, or remixed, method of writing about a collaborative inquiry of two art educators. Their journey comprised searching, identifying, quarreling, and ultimately, proceeding forward on issues related to gaining relevant relationships with the culture of remix and the authors’ prac-tices as art educators. The layout used to illustrate the discourse between the authors presents a philosophically as well as emotionally labor-intensive de/ reconstruction of personal and professional issues related to using concepts of remix with students in art education classrooms. The journey itself enlight-ened the authors and energized a challenge to come to grips with topics they didn’t understand but wanted to understand in order to more fully connect with the media-rich lives of their students. This document shares lessons learned around a process of being transparent about differences, modeling rigorous discourse about the unknown, and sustaining a curiosity for meaningfully hon-oring the lives of our students.

The term remix has been flowing in and out of our awareness for years. A colleague in graduate school used the term to describe his research. Darden used the term with her mother when discussing a partially failed piecrust recipe. Her daughter, laughing with a friend in the backseat, used remix to describe a song that has been reinter -preted by a new contemporary artist. Despite such recollections, we,

authors Darden and Barbara, discovered that our understanding of remix was vague and fleeting, and that we much preferred analog to digital remixes. Through research and discourse we investigated the relationship between remix and art education. At times, we struggled

to communicate as we realized how we teach from places very dif-ferent from one another, as well as from where our students come. Compounded with our discomfort and anxiety about remix, our

real-1 Correspondence regarding this article may be sent to the authors at dbrad

(10)

Tangling in Remix | 19 | ization called attention to the fact that we are both digital immigrants,

dissimilar to our students who are digital natives (Prensky, 2001). The two of us were confronted with the knowledge that in order to reach our students and support them in becoming educators who can reach

their students, we must change. We found ourselves resistant.

This article attempts to give tangible, visual form to our collaborative journey exploring remix as both practice and as culture. Within it we ask, how might our understanding of remix help our teaching? The two of us agreed that it was important to proceed knowing we would be transparent about our journey while modeling to our students the ways remix culture influenced us as pedagogues. In turn, we believed that our students might benefit from a similar expedition into the concepts of remix as a means of enriching their individual teaching practices and philosophies. Going forward, we honor each voice; we

use the column format to indicate our various approaches to remix. These parallel threads are complementary but distinct. Darden’s more conversational narrative stands in contrast to Barbara’s matter-of-fact prose.

We begin this article by gathering contexts in which remix is used by artists, scholars, and musicians. We agreed that we would use the

term remix as follows: a mixture, a combining together of all experiences, beliefs, theories, backgrounds, and values associated with who we are. In

what follows we present our understanding in four sections.2_{In the}

section we call “Searching,” we move forward from our understand

-ing of remix by examining our relationships with remix and teaching as well as remix and artmaking. Next, in “Identifying,” we investi

-gate our individual relationships with technology and the networked culture in which we live. In the section we call “Quarreling,” we come together to share our different understandings. Finally, in the section we call “Proceeding,” we articulate the ways in which we imagine

this journey could potentially inform the work undertaken by art 2 The educators and experiences to which we refer in the text repre-sent various relationships and occasions that made an impact on our journeys. Therefore, they are footnoted individually for the reader’s benefit.

educators in higher education and, ultimately, their pre-service art

education students.

Searching

In our attempt to find ways in which remix, as we understand it,

could be used in valuable ways within contemporary social, cultural,

and educational practices, several thought-provoking questions chal

-lenged our research process. The following exchange begins to reveal our unsettling individual differences and indicates the complexity

that accompanied our journey. Here are excerpts from our

collec-tion of writings and thoughts that informed our conversacollec-tions about remix. You will see that the column on the left indicates Darden’s process while the column on the right indicates Barbara’s.

I find myself recalling an incident three years ago. Driving down a Tucson highway with my then 15-year-old daughter and her

best friend in the backseat, the

radio is blaring and floating up

toward me over the strains of the music are comments about “how

awesome is this new song.” As

they discuss the artist’s attrac-tiveness and his ability to lay musical tracks over one another, I chuckle.

They do not realize the song is a

remix. The version I knew in the

‘80s has been remixed into this 2011 version. I listen and laugh,

not at them but with them, as I realize I said almost the exact

same thing at the age of 15. And

Literature by Amerika (2011) and Lessing (2001) were referenced

(11)

Tangling in Remix | 21 | my mother politely told me the

original song had been made in the ‘60s.

In the past, when I thought of the

term remix, I interpreted it only

from a technological perspective

in which a musical work of art is altered and revised to include

another. Yet as I consider Amer -ika’s discussion of “hybridized,

post-studio arts practices” (2011, p. xiii) I wonder…is what I do as a teacher also remix?

Remix culture creates derivative

works. And to avoid copyright

issues, the work has to be so

transformed as to no longer

reflect the original (Lessig, 2008). Yes, teaching is an act

of derivation. We take the experiences we have had, the

moments of learning that were

most pivotal to us, and use them

as the springboard. Certainly, my teaching practice is a

hybridization, derived from that I have experienced as a learner.

Yet I question, am I altering those experiences enough that they no longer reflect the original or so

that they are used in such a way that I make them uniquely my

own? Is it possible in a remix culture for something to ever be uniquely one’s own?

Today, a sophomore undergradu -ate said to me, “Last week when I presented my lesson to the class,

I heard phrases coming out of

my mouth I had heard Mr. W.

say during my observations of him.” I smiled encouragingly at him. Yes, I thought . . . we are

remix, let alone its potential relevance to art education. That

said, the term was not foreign to me as I vaguely recalled that remix employed technology.

I understood remix to have started in the hands of artists,

specifically musicians. I also

understood the use of remix to be a creative act. But wait.

Remix can be made up of arti-facts from our personal archives

(Knobel & Lankshear, 2008).

Amerika (2011) has claimed

remix to be a “cross between an improvised keynote address delivered at a conference on

disrupting narratives, a stand-up

comedy routine, and the kind of

live, pedagogical performance

found in experimental seminars and lectures . . . in a lab focused

on inventing future forms of avant-garde art and writing” (p. vii).

I remembered a lecture that I had

recently attended by Drs. Wong and Wong, authors of The First Days of School: How to be an

Effec-tive Teacher (1998). One of the first

slides in their presentation read

“STEAL” in massive letters. Dr. Wong asserted that that is how to

be a good teacher, steal from your

colleagues. To me, this seemed to

be a kind of remix.

I am also curious about Amerika’s

“realm of autohallucination,” or

what sounded to me like a sort

of forgiveness we give ourselves before taking risks with hopes of

new discovery.

I searched phrases that included

the terms “remix” and “educa

-tion.” What accrued was an eclectic collection. One page that caught my eye was captioned, “Teacher Binder Remix.” Co -incidentally at the time, I was

(12)

Tangling in Remix | 23 |

all appropriating, or ripping off

our teachers. When I took Dr. Beudert’s3_{assignment to create}

an autobiographical art educa -tion timeline and used it in my

own classes, I was appropriating

that from her. Perhaps she ap-propriated it from someone else. We are part of a culture in which we “consume and then critique,

customize, create, and recreate” (Burwell, 2013) the pedagogical

texts we use.

Everyone does this, right?

I have used Dr. Garber’s4

aes-thetic puzzle assignment to have students investigate the process of creating an open-ended ques -tion about aesthetics and art, Kyla Macario’s5_{cultural literacy} exercise to confront the biases we

carry into our teaching practice,

Saphier and Gower’s Skillful Teacher (1997) graphic organiz

-ers to help students gather and

3 Dr. Lynn Beudert, Professor Emeri-tus of Art, the University of Arizona. 4 Dr. Elizabeth Garber, Professor of Art, the University of Arizona. 5 Kyla Macario, Professor of Practice,

Teaching and Learning Center, the

University of Arizona.

synthesize lecture information, and Dr. Short’s6_{studio/lecture}

format to organize a class. If I listed or noted everything I use that I’ve ripped off/borrowed/ appropriated/remixed from my

former teachers, books I’ve read, videos I’ve seen, I’d have a book.

Yet, little of that is using technol

-ogy but every bit of it is a type of networked remix (if I understand remix).

Thomas Moore, in Care of the Soul

(1992), remixes Renaissance phi

-losophy and theology as he situ

-ates a set of suggestions for how one might begin to think and act

in a way that allows us to care

for our soul— ultimately to push back against the ways in which

we become divided selves. Care comes from the Latin term cura. To curate is to “look after

the items/objects in a collection”

6 Dr. Kathy Short, Professor of

Language, Reading and Culture, the

University of Arizona.

undergraduates as they began to assemble parts of their teaching portfolios. I thought, perhaps

the concepts I could learn about

building a “remixed” binder

would enhance my students’ professional portfolios. It did not take one critical minute for me to

gather the overarching purpose of this blogspot. As I saw it, the

site merely offered some advice

to new teachers: get organized! I thought, “duh!”

Later, I heard a report that focused on the popularity of smart tools and the unique ways in which they interacted with users. Feedback from smart tools was reported to be constructive, not punitive, and often happens

through a series of progress

-ing levels. A user’s purpose is then advanced, as if in a game. “Classroom pedagogy stands to

learn much from remix practices and smart tools and how they

en-able learning and achievement” (Lankshear et al., 2013, p. 30). In the nearest margin I wrote,

“This quote scares the crap out

of educators like me.” Smart

tools have not been a part of my

world—educationally or other

-wise— until recently. When will I find the chance to fully immerse myself with technology in order to find comfort participating within it? I wish to model to stu

-dents an authentic engagement

with contemporary tools.

(13)

or to “select, organize and pres

-ent . . . typically using profes

-sional knowledge” (Retrieved from http://www.oxforddiction

-aries.com/definition/english/ curate#curate-2.)

In delineating our teaching prac

-tice, we are curating the class

-room and learning experiences

for our students. The artists,

artwork, pedagogical structures and practices, teaching tools, and performative strategies I chose

are, in fact, carefully selected to

correspond with the knowledge gaps, purposes, and goals of the

course, personalities of the learn-ers, and my past experiences

teaching the course content. This is remix, is it not?

Do I have the cultural literacy to

engage in remix? In our discus

-sion, Barbara keeps addressing technology. I desperately want to ignore that piece. I am un -comfortable with that part of the

discussion and keep trying to change the subject. I don’t really

know what a meme is and every time the word is used, I feel my

anxiety rising. How can I partici -pate in remix culture when I am

deeply resistant to being open to learning about it? Why am I resistant?

I feel silly being resistant.

And maybe a valuable question

The ongoing 20-year old inter -national art show do it contin-ues to tour the works of artists

including Adrian Piper, Félix

Gonzales-Torres, and Ai Weiwei. The exhibition includes various sets of instructions written by approximately 250 artists and,

according to Obrist, “every work

is very much a collaboration between the artist who writes the instructions and the artist who

actually executes it (as well as) the visitor who interacts with it” (Nathan, 2013).

Remix, right?

According to Deleuze and Guattari (Wolters, 2013, n.p.),

“Rhizomes, taken from a kind of root system found in nature, are

non-linear, and non-hierarchical” (n.p.).

Remix, right?

I recall one of my favorite

part-time jobs, working as a librarian’s

assistant at the School of the Art

Institute of Chicago. There, my

passion for the Fluxus art move-ment exploded as I routinely experienced the works John

Cage, Yoko Ono, Dick Higgins,

and Charlotte Moorman. These

artists and their work, like Yoko Ono’s Instruction paintings, are remix, right?

Cultural literacy required!

I learned that part of what makes

Amerika’s (2011) remixthebook “more than a print book

pub-lished by a prestigious university press,” is its “concept of writing

to include multimedia forms composed for networked and

mobile media environments” (p. vi). Aha! Here were familiar references to technology that encouraged my understanding

(14)

to ask myself is, am I willing to

dismiss my understanding of

remix because it does not

in-clude technology to the greatest degree?

With each new reading, each time I sit down to investigate remix, my conception of it is modified.

Just as I feel I have a handle on

remix, there is a seismic swing and the paradigm has changed.

Remix is a form of deconstruction

(Amerika, 2011), a hybridization

that combines parts from other

wholes into a new work (Knobel & Lankshear, 2008). As I read and engage in this discourse, am I remixing the personal archives of Darden?

networks. I recognized a new

desire to combine my visual art

teaching practices with comput

-ers. No longer dragging my feet, I was encouraged.

Indeed, for me, my personae has included that of an interloper.

I learned from Knobel and

Lank-shear (2008) that remix could be taking cultural artifacts and com

-bining and manipulating them

into new kinds of creative blends. They claimed that remix “had

expanded from remixing music and sound to [include] moving and static images, television, the Internet, personal archives” (p. 27). I like that. I saw the poten

-tial of finding personal value in concepts of remixing as it could include my “personal archives.”

Finally, I had to quit looking for definitions after I came across Lessig’s (2005) comment that there is “no end to remix.” In -stead, there are fertile, “current remixes that reference previous

remixes in a layer of significance indicat[ing] the fertility of an earlier remix” (p. 26).

Identifying

We came back together. In the process of sharing the results of our searching, there were several impassioned differences that separated our perspectives. We experienced frustration, “a-ha” moments, and (dis)connections as our individual artistic practices as well as teaching

practices did not coalesce, yet seemed to naturally embrace concepts of remix. This phenomenon reminded Barbara of another research

project she had done where similar circumstances emerged while par

-ticipants were investigating sense of self and identity. In that study,

participants did their best work in collaboration with one another.

Barbara recalled, “it took a collaborative investigation to determine the intricacies of our individual selves” (Bergstrom, 2014, p. 212). Together, the two of us discovered a stronger sense of self while mak

-ing room to acknowledge one another. In our “Search-ing” section, we began our individual investigations of remix, yet here in “Identify

-ing,” using concepts of mash-up, our identities, and specific theorists, we move from the internal dialogue to a collaborative discourse. We kept remixing.

As an educator I am

continu-ally becoming . . . my identity, knowledge, and experiences as

artist, researcher, teacher,

advo-cate, mother, and colleague are pieced together into a particular construction. I am engaged in a collage process on a daily, mo

-mentary basis. By doing so, am I the producer of culture? Or am I still a consumer? (see figure 1)

I love to think of myself as a remix of several powerful ex-periences I have experienced in

schools. My teaching philosophy

stems from my unique combina-tion of Mrs. Mitchell’s8_“cheer” to help us learn important dates

in European literature; Robin

Williams’ character in Dead Poets’ Society; Mom, who reminded me

that as a student, sometimes you learn about what kind of teacher

you don’t want to become; Dad,

who told me while in elementary

8 Mrs. Ann Mitchell, Barbara’s

(15)

The Exquisite Corpse game start -ed by Andre Breton is a type of

mashup. Slamming a noun, ad -jective, verb, adverb, noun, and

so on up against another to create a sentence is, in effect, pulling together disparate elements into

Fig. 1 D. Bradshaw, Crazed identities, 2014. Hand-sewn fabric scraps.

a new whole with new

mean-ings and derivations. Every

class I teach, I use the Surrealist

Exquisite Corpse drawing game7

as a way to encourage collabora -tion, play, and creative problem

solving. As students engage in an analog form of mashup,

they discover the relationship of

semiotics, artmaking, and visual

culture literacy.

Amerika addresses the

oppor-tunity that arises from mashing up academic writing and popu

-lar culture (2011, p. xii), yet I am conflicted. I am excited,

on the one hand, by the idea that our work as scholars and educators can be shared in

vari-ous forms (written narratives, digital narratives, or digital non-narratives) and through various outlets (journals, blogs,

7 Surrealist artists adapted the

Exquisite Corpse poetry game to one that involved a drawing created by a group of people. Each person would create a drawn image on a piece of

paper, fold down the paper, and pass

the image on to the next participant, and so on. The resulting collaborative drawing had an element of chance and unpredictability. The original intention of the game was to engage

the collective unconscious and see phenomena in new ways.

school that if I am going to do something . . . do it completely;

and many others.

I believe that I model having

empathy for students better after

my fifth grade teacher brought me to tears having taught that no

woman has ever been President of the United States.

As artists, are we not

“perform-ing theory as a part of a creative

process in which artists intui-tively construct various con-ceptual personae to see exactly

(16)

Tangling in Remix | 31 | books, videos, or other

yet-to-be imagined means). That opens up a great space for me as an artist and teacher to find a hybrid research methodology. Yet on the other hand, as I am trying to figure out the protocol for achieving tenure at my insti -tution, the reality that research can be more practice-based and

performative while resisting categorization makes me feel

vulnerable. If I, as an artist and

art educator, struggle to remix definitions of scholarship, how will my colleagues from other

disciplines who must evaluate

my work respond? I would be much more comfortable sharing

my research in various for-mats and modes if I knew with certainty the University Tenure and Promotion committee un-derstood remix as I do.

“For myself, I find that my attitude towards, and understanding of my work is in a constant state of flux. I am continually learning more of

what my work is about from other

people and other sources” (Haring, 1984, p. 369).

While we are modeling remix

practices, are we consciously

and overtly articulating that it is remix? I hear myself channeling Ms. TerVeen, my high school art

teacher: “Pay attention to where

the light hits the object. Do you see the range of values? What

is the relationship of one form

to another?” As I turn to an -other student, I realize that Gayle

Wimmer, my graduate fibers

professor, has just appeared over

my shoulder as I challenge the

student to consider what they are

trying to say.

Is the value-added approach to

understanding the visual arts

dependent on a viewer’s

inter-pretation, or on remix? Isn’t this what I have read Barthes (1972)

proposed, that a work of art is complete only after the viewer

has drawn meaning from it?

Further, I learned, media and

remix literacy fortifies users’ civic engagement by facilitating new forms of participation (Mihailikis 2012).

In my role as an art educator, I demonstrate my own remix of all

the pedagogical influences I have experienced. Might I consider myself “en route to an identity,” as Amerika might propose?

Amerika (2011), claimed that

in the “remixthebook project [he

hoped to] indicate to emerging

artists and scholars, particularly

those engaged in advanced forms of digitally processed,

practice-based research, an alternative

model of multimedia writing . . .

as part of a professional course of

action” (p. vii).

Every semester, I give the same assignment to all my students, re

-gardless of course topic. I ask that they go somewhere or do some

-thing they have never done before. Their written reflections about

their experiences have included

eating like a vegan for a weekend and taking a piano lesson. They

write about new perspectives

they have gained. A sort of remix emerges for them, such as when an exchange student from Korea did

her best to cook Mexican food for

(17)

Tangling in Remix | 33 | I said to Barbara today as we

departed our meeting at the cof -fee shop in Lima, Ohio, that as we research remix I feel like we

are vultures, circling over road

kill. Just as we swoop down

and grab a piece of remix that meshes our ideas and/or furthers our understanding, a semi-truck comes along so we quickly fly away leaving with just tiny little

morsels. “Eleanor Antin once said that

when she started making visual art she began constructing new

personae to step into and out of

as a way to develop new work” (Amerika, 2011, p. 102).

We do this as teachers, finding our way through meaningful peda

-gogical practices.

“I would focus on myself as the instrument that acted on whatever

ground was . . . available” (Acconci in Amerika, 2011, p. 103).

Why not perform my handwritten artwork as “a spontaneous and

continuous theory-to-be”?

I read what Amerika crossed out

on page xvi in remixthebook, “Do

I contradict myself? Very well,

then I contradict myself. I am

large, I contain multitudes.”

Um . . . Yes, I believe that we all

contradict ourselves at times. I

began to wrestle with how this fact relates to being a classroom

teacher and an inspiration to future artist-educators.

The phenomena of “becoming” intrigued me and was consistent

-ly part of my art-making prac -tices. As addressed in my artist statement, in my art I consider the human performance of everyday and how one’s personal priorities coincide with time spent.

Okay. At this point, we have read

about disrupting narratives, the phenomena of becoming, theo

-ries-to-be, being en route, and always becoming. Are we any closer to knowing what remix means?

(18)

Quarreling

Coming together again after numerous sessions where we had spun our wheels, we were determined to find consensus and move for -ward. With hope and determination, we aimed to collate. However, as

colleagues and friends, we were caught off guard by the messy nature

of our collaborative process.

The following “Quarreling” section reveals evidence of the continued clash of our two divergent voices. Rather than being a transcribed dialogue, these thoughts and writings visually chronicle the impetus for conflict.

At least once a month I find myself handing my phone to my daughter and asking for her help solving another techno

-logical problem. I resent being dependent and not being able

to quickly or easily convey my ideas because I do not have

tech-nological know-how.

I realized I share this frustration

of feeling dependent with my

students. Recently one of my preservice students wondered aloud how it was I had the abil-ity to walk into a classroom of

Kindergarten students without

fear, and step in or take over a

lesson she had been teaching that had begun to fall apart. That ability and sense of confidence was gained through exposure, experience, and remixing the pedagogical practices of my own teachers. She will get there, if she keeps learning and if she stays open to finding her teacher voice,

I assured her.

Will I get there with remix? I heard students discussing SnapChat again. My daughter is

tethered to her iPhone in much the same way I am tethered to my pencil. I love the feel of

hold-ing the pencil, the dark marks of graphite on the white paper, and seeing the words take shape. The

disconnection and sterile process

of sending a text message both -ers me. I’d rather meet and talk in person with someone, yet I

see my daughter in a room with

four of her friends, all completely Convinced that remix employs

technology in some way, I inves

-tigated new ways to make art using a computer. Attending the

Ohio Art Education Association conference, I was sure to visit sessions that would help me

ap-preciate and adopt technology in

my classroom. The sessions that I attended had titles such as “An introduction to internet-based

art-making,” “Operation iPad,” and “Digital art lessons using free software.”

A few weeks ago, I realized

that I had lost track of time and

“wasted” one and a half hours blundering around on a website where I could “paint” for free. A few minutes later, I thought

about how unfortunate it was that, without hesitation, I

be-lieved trying to figure out how to paint using my computer had

been a waste of time. Had I not

(19)

silent as they communicate digi

-tally via text and Snap messages.

I questioned, what are the

larger set of social practices in which learners are engaging now? How have these Apps and social media sites changed their relationships with learning? As I investigated SnapChat™ with my daughter one evening,

I discovered that she and her friends place little value on the

my students’ lives saturated by

technology? Wasn’t I doing what I said I would do… discovering new artistic tools and engaging with digital media? Perhaps I was even beginning my own “ar

-chive” of art and technology?

content of the “snap.” Rather, the

value comes from the number

of people following you. If one

does not respond or snap back,

people stop following you. I was stunned. What is being said is

less important than the volume

of people hearing you say noth

-ing? If students are producing

culture and the content of what is produced is irrelevant, what

value is there in the production? My anger has ignited a fire. I must find a way to cross this technological and cultural divide. Is remix the answer?

Fig. 3 B. Bergstrom, “Wasted” Time, 2014. Digital painting.

Fig. 4 Darden

(20)

Tangling in Remix | 39 | I must confront my

relation-ship with technology, or more

accurately, my anxiety with it that precludes me from

mov-ing forward. I may never lose my “digital immigrant accent” (Prensky, 2001, n.p.) but I will at least be conversing in the same language with my students.

“Women have always

col-lected things and saved

and recycled them because leftovers yielded nourish-ment in new forms. The decorative functional objects women made often spoke

in a secret language, bore a covert imagery. When we read these images in needlework, in paintings, in quilts, rugs and scrap

-books, we sometimes find a

cry for help, sometimes an allusion to a secret

politi-cal alignment, sometimes a moving symbol about the

relationships between men and women. We base our interpretations of layered

meanings in these works on

what we know of our own

lives - a sort of archeological

reconstruction and

deci-phering” (Shapiro & Meyer, 1996, p. 153)

Recently, in order to achieve my vision for an arts-based research project in which I was involved, I reluctantly had to learn how to create a website. The investment of time and

energy was tremendous; my learning curve was steep. I am

proud of the work I achieved,

yet exhausted at the thought of having to invest precious

resources so I can learn

nu-merous new technologies to continue moving forward and share in the language of my

students.

I wonder, will I carry that

experi-ence over into my classroom?

My students must be competent

to create a website, right? There

is this voice in my head that says I am the professor, I am supposed to teach them but more often

than not, they are teaching me. (Bradshaw, 2014).

Paik claimed new media artists

can focus on “cybernated life,”

that I translated as, lives that I

considered to be

technology-saturated.

How about the artist as

me-dium?

I wondered, how about the

teacher as medium?

Paik continued, “Cybernated art is very important, but art for cybernated life is more impor-tant, and the latter need not be

cybernated” (Paik in Amerika, 2011, p. 104).

Paik ends his Artist medium instrument remix with, “The

culture that’s going to survive

in the future is the culture that you can carry around in your

(21)

Our apparently different understandings of the ways in which technology has to be incorporated or used in remix seemed to be a tripping point in our discussion; we trespassed upon one another’s identity. We argued, pushed, and got our hackles up.

“I’m so lost. I don’t get what your frustration is.” Darden

“I don’t know what to do about [our discord]. I feel like this is

getting icky.” Darden

“I don’t see how me saying that technology has to be part of remix

is confusing.” Barbara

“Me too.” Barbara

We stepped on one another’s toes and then insisted that we each

provide clarification as we articulated and processed the complex thoughts, viewpoints, and ideas that comprised our interactions. On the verge of exasperation, we had to step back. Finally seizing an opportunity to draw connections between the use of technology in

remix and art education, we shifted focus onto our students.

Hav-ing reached the peak of our dispute, we realized that the process of searching, identifying, and quarreling greatly heightened our indi -vidual awareness for the subtexts from which the two of us approach

teaching and artmaking.

Remix allows us to move away from the mass-produced product

of education, the branding, if you

will, of students into our theories, beliefs, and ideas . . . it creates

a culture through which we are encouraged to foster students

to cultivate, create, critique, and ultimately re-create the text of the

teacher they are becoming. Am I creating an environment where my

students can write and rewrite the

text of their lives (Barthes, 1972) as Dr. Beudert encouraged me to do years ago?

Remix is not new (Knobel & Lankshear, 2008) and has been a

part of cultural development

be-fore digitization. Yet technology has become “increasingly inte

-gral to how [young people] make meaning and express ideas” (p. 23).

If, as Iser (1980) notes, the act of reading is a process of becoming conscious, am I creating a space

where students are reading their

culture and becoming critical remixers?

According to Wilson (1997), the goal of art educational research is to provide knowledge about the

ways art-learners use special

ar-tistic insight to expand their con -ceptions of themselves, past and

It made sense to me that remix

could be part of an aesthetic;

however, it seemed that, by

definition, it would not be part

of a summative assessment of

students’ work. Right?

(22)

present worlds, imagined and

future worlds, and the norms by

which individuals govern their lives through writing the texts

of art into the texts of their lives

within and beyond school. (p.3). As I ask my incoming art edu -cation majors why they want

to teach, am I inviting them

to research into their views of

themselves, to investigate what

education has been for them and ultimately to remix their own

teaching philosophies?

In my resistance to technology, am I precluding my students from writing and remixing the text that allows them to find their own meaning as a teacher? I

have become part of what

Pren-sky (2001) notes is the single big

-gest issue in education—teachers who speak an outdated language teaching students who speak an

entirely different one.

Recently I found myself in an un-familiar situation as an educator. I took a moment and, Barbara’s and my remixed version of the popular phrase, “What Would

Jesus Do,” asked, “What would Elizabeth do?” What pedagogi -cal practices are there in my past experience, my toolbox, my awareness that I can draw from, combine, and recreate to address

this particular situation?

Have I been unfair to my

stu-dents? How could I make partici -pation with personal electronic devices a valuable practice in art

education?

I’m working on it.

How might an art educator be considered a “creative blend?”

How does a teacher (and peda

-gogy) become a remix of images (moving or still), television, the Internet, and personal archives?

And then, what about making them meaningful to a group of art students?

What about technology?

I wanted to escape into what

Knobel and Lankshear (2008) call “game world physics” (p. 25). The idea of leaping up to

the rooftop of the university’s

library, screaming out to release every last complicated thought, then turning invisible to change my pursuit seemed refreshing.

(23)

Proceeding

Using these insights as the springboard to welcome our new under

-standings of remix into our classrooms, studios, teaching, and artmak

-ing practices, we finally began articulat-ing our paths go-ing forward— the ways we intend to bring remix into our pedagogies.

How might fan fiction be useful in creating a space in which my

students become the actors in

their own teaching? Fan fiction is a rewriting of a movie or tele -vision show in such a way that there is a new version, storyline, or character development

(Berkowitz, 2012). Literacy scholars advocate bringing this

practice into the K-12 classroom

(Gee, 2004; Knobel & Lankshear, 2008; Manifold, 2009), but what

if we focus in art education on fan non-fiction. I define fan non-fiction as remixing and rewrit

-ing based on real events lived

with real art educators that occurred in the course of one’s art education and through which the learner becomes a fan of the

educator or their practices. As a result of that fan experience, the participant rewrites and remix-es their art education

philoso-phy, pedagogy, or practice as a byproduct of the original lived experience mashed up against

the situation and educational

experiences in which they find themselves and through which

they remix themselves.

I often say to my daughter, “don’t knock it till you try it.” I am usually referring to a food

item but those words can apply to me. I found myself

encour-aged through this process to 1)

not dismiss what I don’t know

and am afraid of, and 2) not

throw out my beliefs in the

adop-tion of a new thing. Rather, I can find a way to remix my teaching practice to include and build on; to celebrate the technological, digital, and cultural references of

my students while still

celebrat-ing the way I learned and am comfortable teaching.

Teachers . . .

How might we collaborate to use remixing as a route to mean

-ingful pedagogical practices in visual arts education?

How might we remix the pleth

-ora of pedagogical ideas, experi -ences, and standards to make

them meaningful for our future students?

Near the end of the time we

delegated to writing this piece, I tried something new with my

students in a Foundations in Art

Education course. Wanting to explore as many technological

opportunities in the art class-room as possible, I made a list of media-based tools that could potentially be used in teaching and asked several groups of four

students to pick a tool at random. Then they were asked to use the tool to teach a studio art project to those in our class.

Several of the students’ imme-diate responses claimed they had never heard of Popplet,

Web 2.0, or Weebly. I thought to myself… this is perfect! “That’s why we’re doing this as

(24)

Tangling in Remix | 47 | This past semester I invited

students to bring their ideas and experiences to remixing our col

-lective understanding of visual

culture. Students were asked to consider the ways in which

visual culture signs are mixed and remixed to layer meaning,

to interpret the ways in which

those signs have impacted their

particular disciplinary focus,

and then to find a way to share or disseminate their findings to

us. The students created videos,

blogs, twitter accounts, insta

-gram accounts, and websites to articulate their developing and remixed understandings of visual culture. Opening up my prac

-tice to invite their technological

expertise enriched everyone’s

learning.

Remix is another tool for social justice and democracy. It can

be a method for breaking down

barriers between those who have access to information and those who do not. Rather than we, as

teachers, holding all the cards and knowledge, our students

come to us with access to and

experience with finding and pro

-ducing that knowledge. Perhaps

the more pertinent of our tasks is to help them critique and

ana-lyze what they are producing?

Isn’t that what education should

do—help students discern how to remix everything together as they find their voice?

After each group had done

their lesson’s presentation, the

most engaging discourse of our semester emerged. The 20-25

minute presentations were

thought-provoking and triggered the students’ imaginations. They

elaborated on ideas for how to

use these technologies as ways to

create new platforms for

cri-tiques, build ongoing art history timelines, assign collaborative

mind-maps as homework, and construct interactive portfolios for submissions to various cre-ative competitions.

Perhaps students enjoyed the

fact that I was putting myself at risk when doing this assignment with our class. Walking into the unknown proved to be inspiring.

In Closing

Here we have articulated the difficult process we experienced in our attempts to come to terms with something we did not understand.

We knew from the start that intense efforts would be required from the two of us. We had anticipated that this project would demand an openness that made vulnerable our personal values and beliefs. At

the beginning of our journey, neither of us necessarily wanted to

un-derstand remix. Yet we also knew that being able to empathize with

our students of the 21st century would make us better art educators

and, perhaps, better artists. With our heightened awareness of various concepts of remix, we agree with this claim made by Keith Haring,

I think the contemporary artist has a responsibility to humanity

to continue celebrating humanity and opposing the dehumaniza

-tion of our culture. This doesn’t mean that technology shouldn’t

be utilized by the artist, only that it should be at the service of

humanity and not vice versa. (1984, n.p.)

Reflecting back on the ways we managed our challenges, the two of us can see that we needed to have dialogue through which to debate, process, and grasp theories about remix and hybridization. Con

-frontations among our philosophical, emotional, and organizational

positionalities helped us realize that remix and hybridization are not

(25)

created with our students was a fundamental factor in our willingness to deeply and persistently engage with what was at first risky, foreign, and alienating. This commitment to one another as colleagues brings to light one of our initial intentions for this project: that of modeling the value found in doing collaborative research—or remixing—while remaining transparent and honest with one another as friends, track

-ing our progress as professionals in the field, and keep-ing our

pre-service art education students at the heart of our pursuits.

The comfort we developed with one another and our individual

dif-ferences demonstrated for us the value of intentionally creating envi -ronments that foster collaborative explorations. As an outcome of this experience, we better understand ways we may support our students

to authentically participate in their own remix— searching, identify

-ing, quarrelling and proceeding. We possess a renewed investment in opening fresh spaces for discourse throughout the milieu of visual

arts education.

Maybe we have advanced the complex process that is remix. Or

maybe we have merely cultivated the enigma. In the end, we are able to share the importance of seeking understanding even if—especially if—it means reaching well beyond our comfort levels to build mean

-ingful, educative relationships. Remix, right?

References

Amerika, M. (2011). Remix the book (Kindle ed.). Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies: Roland Barthes. New York, NY: Hill & Wang.

Bergstrom, B. (2014). Engaging a sense of self: Participatory action research within a course for MFA graduate students in the visual arts (Doctoral dissertation). Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest TX7-865-458.

Berkowitz, D.E. (2012). Framing the future of fanfiction: The New York Times’

portrayal of a youth media subculture influences beliefs about media literacy

education. Journal of Medial Literacy Education, 4(3), 198-212.

Bradshaw, R. D. (2014). Dialogue & reflective visual journaling: A means

to empower pre-service art educators. VOKE, 2. Retrieved from http://www. vokeart.org/?p=481&spoke=1

Burwell, C. (2013). The pedagogical potential of video remix: Critical con

-versations about culture, creativity, and copyright. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(3), 205-213. DOI: 10.1002/JAAL.205.

Bryant, C. (2010). A 21st-century art room: The remix of creativity and tech

-nology. Art Education, 63(2), 43-48.

Curate 1. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini

-tion/english/curate#curate-2

Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling.

New York: Routledge.

Haring, K. (1984) Untitled Statement. In K. Stiles & P. Selz (Eds.), Theories and documents of contemporary art: A sourcebook of artists’ writings (pp. 369-371). Berke -ley: University of California Press.

Iser, W. (1980). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008). Remix: The art and craft of endless hy -bridization. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 22-33.

Lessig, L. (2005). Creative commons. Paper presented to the Annual ITU con

-ference, Creative dialogues. Oslo, Norway: Network for IT-Research and Compe

-tence in Education (ITU), University of Oslo.

Leesig, L. (2014). Remix making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy.

Las Vegas, NV: Epic Publishing.

Moore, T. (1992). Care of the Soul. New York: HarperCollins.

Nathan, E. (2013, July 2). You can ‘do it’. Retrieved from http://www.artnews. com/2013/07/02/you-can-do-it/

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, Digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5),

1-6.

Saphier, J. & Gower, R. (1997). The skillful teacher: Building your teaching skills.

Volume 32 complete

Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education

jCRAE

Journal of

Cultural Research

in Art Education

jCRAE

Past Editors

jCRAE

Table of Contents

Editorial Introduction

Tangling in Remix